I have a friend who is in the Marines who lost his leg in an IED attack while serving in Iraq.

We were talking one day and mentioned MW2 and perhaps new things that might be included and the topic of, "What if they have like an IED thing for killstreaks/perk?" came up. He told me that he wouldn't like to see that in the game at all, reason being is that I guess he doesn't want to have something that is taking our and other countries soldiers lives to be depicted so nonchalant in a video game (especially because he has experienced that first hand).

I see that as a reasonable explanation why he and perhaps other real-life soldiers/veterans would not like to see that in a game and might be offensive to some players/critics.

Modern Warfare would get terrible publicity from tight-assed news sources like CNN. Its not worth it, and honestly would be completely pointless. Unless the game comes with vehicles in multiplayer, which I dont think it will.

Besides an IED doesent have any shape or design, its an improvised explosive device. This could be anything from old artillery shells set to explode to combustible materials packed with shards of metal.

You must realize that guns and bullets are everywhere not just in war. IEDs are too current and are a cowardly tactic-yet effective unfortunately. You can prevent being shot much more easier than being blownup by a remote device that you can make it look like litter on the side of the road.

People have lost their limbs because of grenades ... take those out too? Like other people have mentioned here it is a unfortunate part of warfare and has no reason not to be included/excluded for any other reason than it works/dont work (gameplay wise)

You must realize that guns and bullets are everywhere not just in war. IEDs are too current and are a cowardly tactic-yet effective unfortunately. You can prevent being shot much more easier than being blownup by a remote device that you can make it look like litter on the side of the road.

Do I really dont agree with you. It sounds like your saying its ok to kill somebody as long as you arent stealthy. Its still killing. Your either against ALL OF IT and not. Thats the south park approach to comedy and its the only way.

Killing someone by hiding and standing toe to toe with them are two different animals. I'm saying right now the majority of servicemen are being killed by roadside bombs, which is a terrorist tactic and only terrorist are using them. Alot of veterans play these games, most of them can get past the shooting, but seeing something that could've killed one of their buddies-like an IED-brings up too many bad memories. It's unfair fighting anyway you look at it video games or not. IED explosions are what many veterans have bad thoughts of when coming back-PTSD. Look it up. I'm saying just leave this one thing out, it's not going to ruin the game if there aren't IEDs in it.

You must realize that guns and bullets are everywhere not just in war. IEDs are too current and are a cowardly tactic-yet effective unfortunately. You can prevent being shot much more easier than being blownup by a remote device that you can make it look like litter on the side of the road.

Claymore are even more cowardly as they are even more effective
One side uses m4 in real life other aks
One uses claymore one uses IEDs

You must realize that guns and bullets are everywhere not just in war. IEDs are too current and are a cowardly tactic-yet effective unfortunately. You can prevent being shot much more easier than being blownup by a remote device that you can make it look like litter on the side of the road.

Claymore are even more cowardly as they are even more effective
One side uses m4 in real life other aks
One uses claymore one uses IEDs

Get over it, alls fair

Yeah, until a veteran snaps from PTSD and shoots a place up or kills himself. IED's aren't needed. I'll be the last one to be politically correct, but when it comes to people getting hurt in real life over a bunch of pixels, IW won't touch it.

The U.S. doesn't use claymores in IRAQ,think collateral damage. In the game you can see the claymore and its red tripwire. An IED is hidden as a piece of garbage on the side of the road. In the game I'm not going to check every piece of trash that is scattered around, so some guy can blow me up with a cheap NOKIA cellphone.

I have family and friends who have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan they haven't been hurt by any IEDS but quite a few people in there units have so i don't think it's something that should be in as it's too close to home for a lot of people.

The original poster and anyone agreeing with him really ought to be more worried about the inclusion of guns. It's incredibly biased of us in the west to think that we should exclude things which hurt us, whilst the entire MW1 storyline was based around weapons which killed absurd amounts of people in WW2.

It happened but you know what else happens? People get shot by gang bangers. Dirty cops kill innocent people. Drug dealers sell drugs. And theres many games that depict ALL of that. In fact theres a very popular one out now, and maybe youve heard of it. GTA V?

So yea.

Life imitates Art and vice versa. Next thing youll want to take guns out of FPS's because people get shot by them. ... get real.